Tucson

A neighborhood park. A public right.

The founding team brought this case to establish that even a small encampment in a neighborhood pocket park could constitute a nuisance. The City defended on the basis of several intricate legal theories, all of which were defeated at trial or on appeal.

The City argued there was no “public right” to access the pocket park; the founding team refuted that at trial. The City argued it had governmental immunity because its encampment resolution policy was a matter of “fundamental government policy.” The founding team defeated that on the law both at trial and on appeal. Finally, the City argued that it may have consented to the encampments, but it did not consent to the nuisance conditions that those encampments created. The founding team bested that argument on appeal.

The injunction and attorney’s fees.

After the appellate decision, the trial court entered a permanent injunction requiring the City to abate the encampments. The parties are currently litigating attorney’s fees, which were granted by the trial court and are now on appeal.